Human Asexuality

[J'Dona]

I notice that no thread on SFN has considered it in depth, so I offer this thread.

 

There is consfusion as to whether asexuality, being defined provisionally as "having no sexual attraction to a partner of either sex," is a sexual disorder, dysfunction, or orientation. I've been reading on it, but there is a paucity of scientific research available, so it may be that for now opinion is as good as we have ... but we can still hear that. The main debate is whether asexuality is simply a form of inhibited sexual desire or a separate sexual orientation.

 

To get discussion moving, here is a 2004 article from The Journal of Sex Research by Anthony F. Bogaert, which provides the above definition and notes the apparent prevalence at about 1% of the population; thus, if it is a unique sexual orientation, you can see the significance, being similar to the percentage of the population which is homosexual (about 3%).

[Neil9327]

That's going to be a difficult one to answer. I suppose the only way to identify a true asexual is someone who has never shown any interest in the subject even though they are mentally normal, with good physical and mental health.

 

Like so many things in science, it is difficult to prove a negative. And scientists still don't have a good understanding of what drives the differences between the sexualities (hetero, homo), and the sexual deviancies (paedophilia, Gerontophelia, zoophelia etc)

[J'Dona]

When you say "someone who has never shown any interest in the subject," what precisely are you referring to? I only mean if you mean a lack of interest in the subject of sex itself, the subject of attraction, or the subject of attraction (i.e. the person).

 

Any discussion is going to have a problem with definitions (complicated by the definitions themselves not being official), as asexuality itself is only just emerging as a concept of sexuality in humans, whether or not it is legitimate. Bogaert talks about "sexual attraction", but this needs to be separated from sexual desire and sexual drive, which are different things.

[Psycho]

To be fair i don't see how you can be asexual and be truely mentally stable, as being attracted to someone is just a stong emotion, like any other, if you didn't have it then you wouldn't understands alot of things.

 

If you think about it an attraction is just liking something alot, it has more characteristics due to the fact in an evolutionary sense we need to notice it.

[J'Dona]

I think a difference is being drawn between sexual attraction and romantic attraction, which aren't necessarily connected. For example, JesuBungle may enjoy the properties of J Lo, but claiming by extension that he would care for her until she is old and eighty is not necessarily true.

[reor]

Sexual attraction induces chemical processes inside the body. Asexual people can have fulfilling platonic relationships, [acr="As Far As I Know]AFAIK[/acr].

[Neil9327]

When you say "someone who has never shown any interest in the subject' date='" what precisely are you referring to? I only mean if you mean a lack of interest in the subject of sex itself, the subject of [i']attraction[/i], or the subject of attraction (i.e. the person).

 

Any discussion is going to have a problem with definitions (complicated by the definitions themselves not being official), as asexuality itself is only just emerging as a concept of sexuality in humans, whether or not it is legitimate. Bogaert talks about "sexual attraction", but this needs to be separated from sexual desire and sexual drive, which are different things.

 

 

I meant someone who has never shown any interest in or had any sexual attraction to, another person.

I agree the definitions need a careful definition.

 

I've thought of another sexual "orientation" Someone who is sexually attracted to themselves. I.e. they spend more time than they ought to in front of a mirror.

Has anyone heard of this idea?

What would they be called? An "Autosexual"?

[JesuBungle]

I've thought of another sexual "orientation" Someone who is sexually attracted to themselves. I.e. they spend more time than they ought to in front of a mirror.

Has anyone heard of this idea?

What would they be called? An "Autosexual"?

 

I believe this is called narcissism, but I don't think there is anything sexual about it. More of a looks thing. So there may be yet another where the person is sexually attracted to themselve.

[J'Dona]

As far as I know, "autosexual" is the correct term in that usage, Neil9327. That's another point of debate (on a more political side): whether self-identified asexuals who are attracted to themselves (it's a person after all!), or who have a sex drive which is not directed at people, or who are even attracted to other people but who have no desire for sexual relations are asexuals or not. The last seems quite a liberal definition (and could possibly be a result of other things, such as, for example, schizoid personality), but to consider only those without a sex drive at all may be too drastic, and leaves a fair amount of those who presently identify as asexual in a fuzzy, undefined area.

 

In chat, one member was wondering whether it could be attributed to hormones. Already given "no sexual attraction" to other people, people who identify as asexuals can sort loosely into those with:

-- a sex drive and romantic attraction to others

-- a sex drive and no romantic attraction to others

-- no sex drive and romantic attraction to others

-- no sex drive and no romantic attraction to others

all of which or only the last of which may be actual asexuality, depending on who is defining it. But the variance between them shows that if asexuality is a hormone problem, it should be able to explain the various forms of it (after lack of sexual attraction), and the subtleties in that person's experiences.

[Severian]

If we are going to define homosexuality as 'normal' I don't see how one can possible call asexuality 'devient' or 'abnormal'. Homosexuals are not attracted to members of the opposite sex, while hetrosexuals are not attracted to members of the same sex. Asexuals are not attracted to either, so they are a combination of both.

[gcol]

If you want to describe homosexuality as normal, as normal as hetero- sexuality, you are beginning to describe a range of activities which fallinto an acceptable norm. Once there is a range, and no absolute, the pressure to extend the range grows from those on the fringe to be classified as normal so as not to be persecuted or marginalised. This will mean that the word normal in this context rapidly becomes vacuous and meaningless and has no use inthis topic.

[mimefan599]

How can someone be asexual if all of thier organs are working, I mean, where would the labido want it to go?

[Neil9327]

If you want to describe homosexuality as normal, as normal as hetero- sexuality, you are beginning to describe a range[/i'] of activities which fallinto an acceptable norm. Once there is a range, and no absolute, the pressure to extend the range grows from those on the fringe to be classified as normal so as not to be persecuted or marginalised. This will mean that the word normal in this context rapidly becomes vacuous and meaningless and has no use inthis topic.

 

Well I didn't describe homosexuality as "normal" but I implied that it was in my earlier post because this is what society thinks these days.

 

Maybe this is a question for the politics sub-forum, but I think this raises an ethical issue: If homosexuals are going to justify their lifestyle as "normal" just because around 3% of the population is gay then there is, as you have said, a risk that other "fringe" groups might claim their lifestyle is normal too, based on, say, a 1% prevelance in society.

Surely when we as a society are deciding who to "persecute or marginalise" we should be making judgements on the effect that a certain lifestyle is having on our society, good or bad, rather than saying "lots of people are like this, so it must be normal", hence no persecution/marginalisation.

[Neil9327]

As far as I know' date=' "autosexual" is the correct term in that usage, Neil9327.

[/quote']

Is it really?

I thought of that word years ago as a student.

BTW just for the record, I don't have any large shiny mirrors in my house...

[Mokele]

Maybe this is a question for the politics sub-forum, but I think this raises an ethical issue: If homosexuals are going to justify their lifestyle as "normal" just because around 3% of the population is gay then there is, as you have said, a risk that other "fringe" groups might claim their lifestyle is normal too, based on, say, a 1% prevelance in society.

Surely when we as a society are deciding who to "persecute or marginalise" we should be making judgements on the effect that a certain lifestyle is having on our society, good or bad, rather than saying "lots of people are like this, so it must be normal", hence no persecution/marginalisation.

 

I think the problem is "normal". In one sense, it *only* means the default state. However, it can also mean something that's not regarded as unusual or harmful due to familiarity. Homosexuality is not normal in the first sense, but is in the second (at least for most). "Normal" has become one of these words that's so carelessly tossed about that's its sole meaning is contextual. As far as it's role in political debates, it should be banned; whenever a political group uses the word 'normal', it's code for 'we want to take away the rights of those who are different, in spite of the fact that a singificant portion of the Constitution is dedicated to prevention of tyranny by majority.'

 

Mokele

[Edtharan]

I think the word "normal" is used to attempt to polarise people on one side of the debate or other.

 

I believe that asexuality is normal. It is not an unheathy sexual behaviour. By this I mean that it does not negativly effect scociety and does not harm the person who is asexual. This is the same with homosexuality.

 

There are some that will debate this point of view and here is my response:

 

Niether Homosexuality or Asexuality harms society, discrimination, however does.

 

I would class a disorder or dysfunction as something that does harm to the individual or to society, and as neiter Asexuality or Homosexuality does, then it should be classed as an Orientation. It is a narrow view that only sees hetrosexuality as the only sexual orentation.

 

To be fair i don't see how you can be asexual and be truely mentally stable, as being attracted to someone is just a stong emotion, like any other, if you didn't have it then you wouldn't understands alot of things.

But they have a range of strong emotions that you will never understand or experence, so by your reasoning you must also be mentaly unstable as you don't have access to these feelings.

 

Besides not being able to experence strong feelings (or not experenceing them even if you can) does not make you mentally unstable. Have you experenced the strong feelings that deep meditation can bring? Not everyone can experence them or atempt to experence them even if they could. Are all these people mentally unstable?